[2026:RJ-JP:20768] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9504/2024 1. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, 4Th Floor, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur- 302005 (Raj.) Through Its General Manager. 2. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, 4Th Floor, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur- 302005 (Raj.) Through Officer In Charge (Disciplinary Authority) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Satya Prakash Goyal, Since Deceased Through Legal Representative - 1/1 Hansika Garg Daughter of Late Shri Satya Prakash Goyal, Aged About 46 Years, Resident of A-8, Netaji Subhash Nagar-Ii, Hari Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur - 302018. 1/2 Garima Gupta Daughter of Late Shri Satya Prakash Goyal, Aged About 44 Years, Resident of Near Uco Bank, Hanumangardh Town, Hanumangardh, Rajasthan. 1/3 2. Sumit Goyal Son of Late Shri Satya Prakash Goyal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident of Flat No. 403, Shivalya Apartment, Near Water Tank, Janakpuri, Aligardh, Uttar Pradesh. The Controlling Authority, The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Jaipur, Metropolitan Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Devyani Rathore For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Garg HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 18/05/2026 1. Heard counsel for petitioners, counsel appearing on behalf of legal representatives of deceased-employee and perused the record including the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2024 passed by Controlling Authority, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Jaipur. 2. With the consent of counsel for both parties, the instant writ petition has been heard finally on merits at this stage. [2026:RJ-JP:20768] (2 of 6) [CW-9504/2024] 3. The precise issue is in respect of allowing interest @10% for the period of delay in releasing the gratuity and directing to refund the penalty amount, which was deducted/forfeited by employer from the gratuity. 4. The relevant factual matrix of present case, in nutshell is that respondent No.1-employee Mr. Satya Prakash Goyal (now deceased and represented through his legal representatives), retired from the post of Additional Chief Engineer from the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited (for short, 'RSGSML') on 31.07.2007. He had worked with the RSGSML w.e.f. 20.06.1995 to 30.07.2007. His gratuity, payable on retirement was released by the petitioners-employer on 03.07.2015, that too after deduction of Rs.60,009/- (Rs.60,000 approx.) from the gratuity amount. The amount of Rs.60,000 was deducted in order to recover the penalties imposed upon the employee vide various orders totaling to amount Rs.55,000/- + advance amount of Rs.5,009/-. The employee by filing original application on 25.10.2018 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act of 1972'), claimed interest on the delayed period of gratuity i.e. 31.07.2007 to 03.07.2015 as also prayed that deduction/forfeiture of amount of Rs.60,000/- from the gratuity is against the provision of Section 4(6) of the Act of 1972, hence, be ordered to be refunded along with interest. The original application, after extending due hearing to the petitioners-employer, has been allowed by the Controlling Authority vide judgment dated 07.03.2024 and thereagainst, petitioners-employer have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [2026:RJ-JP:20768] (3 of 6) [CW-9504/2024] 5. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the judgment dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Competent Authority under the Act of 1972 is appellable under Section 7(7) of the Act of 1972. The provision of Section 7(7) is being reproduced hereunder:- "(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf: Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days. Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under subsection (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount." Petitioners-employer, by its own option, have not availed the statutory remedy of appeal rather have invoked the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, making out a case that the judgment impugned is without jurisdiction. 6. Having gone through the impugned judgment, this Court does not find any force in the submission of counsel for petitioners because the impugned judgment neither stands erroneous on account of jurisdictional error nor has been passed in breach of [2026:RJ-JP:20768] (4 of 6) [CW-9504/2024] principle of natural justice nor stands violative to the statutory provisions of the Act of 1972. In such eventuality, the invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is impermissible moreso when the petitioner had an opportunity of statutory appeal against the impugned judgment. 7. Nevertheless, coming to merits of the impugned judgment, as far as directions by the Competent Authority to pay interest @10% on the gratuity amount for the delayed period commenced from 31.07.2007 to 03.07.2015 (period between the date of retirement of employee and the date of release of the gratuity) is concerned, same stands in conformity to Section 8 of the Act of 1972 and counsel for petitioners is unable to justify such delay as merely on account of issuance of the charge-sheet at the time of retirement and pendency of disciplinary enquiry, the gratuity amount is not permissible to be withheld. As far as the contention of counsel for petitioners that as per Rule 90(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules of 1996') no gratuity shall be paid until conclusion of departmental or judicial proceeding, is concerned, the provision of Section 14 of the Act of 1972 has an overriding effect thereupon. 8. Counsel for petitioners, during course of arguments, does not dispute such proposition and as far as payment of interest for the delayed period is concerned, she has not seriously opposed/questioned the impugned judgment. 9. In respect of issuing directions to repay the deducted/forfeited amount of Rs.60,000/-, the contention of counsel for petitioners is that the penalties to the tune of [2026:RJ-JP:20768] (5 of 6) [CW-9504/2024] Rs.40,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- were imposed by various orders and the authority has virtually quashed the punishment orders, while issuing direction to refund such penalty amount. Additional amount of Rs.5,000/- against the advance amount obtained by employee has also wrongly been ordered to be refunded. In this context, this Court has perused the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment, the Competent Authority has nowhere quashed the penalty orders. The only findings of the Competent Authority are to the effect that as per Section 4(6) of the Act of 1972, the amount of gratuity may not be forfeited/deduced in order to recover the penalty amount. For ready reference, Section 4(6) of the Act of 1972 reads as under:- '(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), - (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. (b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited] - (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.' Counsel for petitioners, is unable to make out a case that the services of respondent-employee were terminated or his case falls [2026:RJ-JP:20768] (6 of 6) [CW-9504/2024] within ambit and scope of Section 4(6) of the Act of 1972. Due to such reason, the directions to refund the amount of Rs.60,000/-, which was erroneously deducted/forfeited by the employer, while releasing the gratuity to the employee, may not be held as illegal or without jurisdiction. However, so far as recovery of amount of Rs.60,000/- is concerned, petitioner-employer is at liberty to adopt the proper procedure as envisaged under law to recover such amount from the employee. 10. For the aforesaid reasons and on both counts, not availing the statutory remedy of appeal against impugned judgment by petitioner so also on merits, the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2024 does not warrant any interference by this High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence, the instant writ petition, is hereby dismissed. 11. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/162-S